CIA and Congress....

[Guest]

I am reading and hearing this morning that the Democrats in Congress are saying that Panetta of the CIA admitted to them he lied to them since 2001, YET Panetta and the CIA still making statements to the contrary.

I am confused, as always, on this and hope that anyone who can find FACTS...not ACCUSATIONS will post them.

If the CIA has been lying to congress since 2001 then heads must roll....

And if the Democrats are simply creating a smokescreen then again heads must roll.

Have we lost our minds ?

[Guest]

Which means using or hiding behind words and or the letter of the law. For example in their mind it is not a lie if it can't be proven....they know exactly where the thin ice is on the abuse of the truth.

I always remember one statement made by a judge....he said something to the effect lawyers are trained to creatively use words to make their case or defend their clients....which includes murders, rapists, thieves, et al........ENOUGH SAID!!!!

And in a no accountability environment like the congress, where lying is the norm, and the wagons circle to protect their own, what else is to be expected?

btk

[Guest]

"The CIA" never lied to anyone. If lies were old, they were told by specific people, not the agency. The agency is staffed with several thousand dedicated folk doing a job few understand and fewer appreciate. So, if lies were told, then let the names of those who are accused of such be identified, and let them step forward to defend their remarks to Congress.

[Guest]

...for a clandestine service so important to our national security be legally required to provide a whole bunch of politicians "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Have we heard a dumber idea today?

[Guest]

...for a clandestine service so important to our national security be legally required to provide a whole bunch of politicians "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

Have we heard a dumber idea today?

My thought which then means that this group of Democratic congress folks are playing politics with this which is absolutely insane !

[Guest]

My thought which then means that this group of Democratic congress folks are playing politics with this which is absolutely insane !

Those pompous fools will play politics with anything to get their mugs in front of a camera or microphone. In Massachusetts, one of our senators has a knickname of "Liveshot Kerry"

[Guest]

Ok..anyone who knows anything different please correct me if necessary....

The CIA, as a routine matter develops programs to be used but NOT routine to tell congress unless they are going to put it into practice.

Panetta goes to congress about a program that was never used and informs them of that fact.

Seven Democrats write a letter to Panetta claiming he admitted the CIA lied and RELEASED IT TO THE PRESS !

To me, this is serious stuff. If anyone in the CIA is lying to our congress OR if anyone from the previous administration condoned that, then allow us to punish them severly and have hearings and identify them.

If these seven Democrats are simply playing politics with the CIA, they should be thrown out of office NOW !

[Guest]

Bucco, in the grand scheme of things I'm finding it hard to get too exorcised about any of the people involved in this exercise of juvenile finger-pointing, who said what to whom and when, etc. I'd say that particularly the members of Congress caught in this flap have done their personal reputations some damage, but then I considered what their reputations were in the first place.

The best example of how government officials communicate with one another when they don't want to was Alan Greenspan's frequent appearances before one Congressional committee or another as part of the 'oversight process'. The Congressmen always wanted him to say something they could use politically and he knew what they were up to and was a master of verbal avoidance of their questions and obfuscation in framing his answers. Greenspan kept Congress, the financial markets and the public guessing for the entire 19 years he was Fed chairman. Did Greenspan always tell Congress the truth? I'll bet that he did. But I'd also bet that for the most part they only understood what he wanted them to understand--nothing more, nothing less.

I suppose we could also use Bill Clinton's attempt to define what is is to a grand jury as an example, but let's not go there again.

My guess is that some CIA operatives fulfilled their legal obligation to communicate with certain members of Congress as the result of the oversight process. Those Congress-people probably didn't know enough or didn't care to ask the right questions. Now they're now caught in a flap over what they knew about "waterboarding" which has become the cause celeb of the media.

I guess I'm left thinking...who cares? This country has a lot bigger problems than this one. The less I hear from Nancy Pelosi, the better. And Leon Panetta ought to be left alone to supervise those practicing their spycraft in the silence and vagueness that lets the CIA work for the best interests of the American people.

[Guest]

This entire imbroglio is nothing more than an attempt by stooge democrats to take heat off their leader, the ever-charming Ms Pelosi.




`

[Guest]

Bucco, in the grand scheme of things I'm finding it hard to get too exorcised about any of the people involved in this exercise of juvenile finger-pointing, who said what to whom and when, etc. I'd say that particularly the members of Congress caught in this flap have done their personal reputations some damage, but then I considered what their reputations were in the first place.

The best example of how government officials communicate with one another when they don't want to was Alan Greenspan's frequent appearances before one Congressional committee or another as part of the 'oversight process'. The Congressmen always wanted him to say something they could use politically and he knew what they were up to and was a master of verbal avoidance of their questions and obfuscation in framing his answers. Greenspan kept Congress, the financial markets and the public guessing for the entire 19 years he was Fed chairman. Did Greenspan always tell Congress the truth? I'll bet that he did. But I'd also bet that for the most part they only understood what he wanted them to understand--nothing more, nothing less.

I suppose we could also use Bill Clinton's attempt to define what is is to a grand jury as an example, but let's not go there again.

My guess is that some CIA operatives fulfilled their legal obligation to communicate with certain members of Congress as the result of the oversight process. Those Congress-people probably didn't know enough or didn't care to ask the right questions. Now they're now caught in a flap over what they knew about "waterboarding" which has become the cause celeb of the media.

I guess I'm left thinking...who cares? This country has a lot bigger problems than this one. The less I hear from Nancy Pelosi, the better. And Leon Panetta ought to be left alone to supervise those practicing their spycraft in the silence and vagueness that lets the CIA work for the best interests of the American people.


I agree with everything you say VK !

I am just so dumbstruck that anyone would make politics with the CIA in public this (and do it so poorly) and whether they be R or D, I just think they need to be called out big time !!!

[Guest]

...

My guess is that some CIA operatives fulfilled their legal obligation to communicate with certain members of Congress as the result of the oversight process. Those Congress-people probably didn't know enough or didn't care to ask the right questions. Now they're now caught in a flap over what they knew about "waterboarding" which has become the cause celeb of the media.

I guess I'm left thinking...who cares? This country has a lot bigger problems than this one. The less I hear from Nancy Pelosi, the better. And Leon Panetta ought to be left alone to supervise those practicing their spycraft in the silence and vagueness that lets the CIA work for the best interests of the American people.

What really happens is that the Congressperson may never make the trip to Langley, and oftentimes some staffer(s) play gopher instead. How much the staffer relays back to the Congressperson varies with how interested the Congressperson is and how important the staffer wants to make him/herself out to be.

As far as Mr. Panetta is concerned, he is the epitome of the philosophy that any manager can manage anything. His knowledge of intelligence operations is equal to mine about nuclear fission (it goes "boom," right?). The internal vernacular of the intel business will have him confused on matters for quite a while.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1
And the press is always right?
Especially the NY Times?

Amazing how they have all the time to delve into this, but couldn't bother to read the biggest spending bill (all borrowed money!) in history.

The CIA, by virtue of the secrecy of what it does, is a convenient target, and Mr. Panetta hasn't had a headline since he was exiled to Langley. Now there can be all this "speculation" in the press, complete with "anonymous sources" and probably an upcoming "leaked memo." Sounds like the next Baldacci novel....

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1


Let us assume for a minute that the Times report is true !

This was a program NEVER EVER utilized...simply an idea and a plan !

Had it been put into practice, I would assume that the administration would have then notified congress.

Other than that....we are going to go on and on with assumptions and what we WANT it to be. I have listed the facts !

This is typical politics..diversion...and both parties do it !

PS: Perhaps it may be more important to the country to investigate how information from this briefings and such get leaked to the press. This part of the story, to me, is the most chilling and important !